These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
First pagePrevious page8910
 

[Crius] Industry Landscape feedback

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Telkor Okel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#181 - 2014-07-12 18:15:18 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.


Max runs are 10 on Adaptive Invul Field II, I'm still getting 1 run on a T2 BPC after inventing.


I think there's still a bug there that Nullabor's got on his to-fix list.


Any progress on this? (or did I miss an update) I just tested for mining crystals on my alt and got a 1 run t2 bpc
Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#182 - 2014-07-13 18:23:21 UTC
CCP: Consider putting standings into manufacturing somewhere. Having an incentive to create standings with the NPC station facilities gives players a reason to log in and be in space. Choices, interesting game play, a distinction between doing industry in a station vs POS, etc.

The NPC industry tax seems like a natural fit like with trade and refining, but it could be anything. It could be a minimal requirement - certainly not excessive like the current POS standing requirements. But if I moved to another region to try to find a good team or install cost, I wouldn't mind having my standings with the relevant NPC corporation come into play.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#183 - 2014-07-14 11:12:29 UTC
MailDeadDrop wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Captain Davy wrote:
I have noticed some inconsistencies with the BPO mapping:

On TQ i used to have a T2 PBC of "Capital energy discharge elutriation II" at ME0 and PE0. On sisi i got the same PBC with ME +9% and TE +18%.

However, material costs of building it on TQ is lower than on SISI: 22/55/55 vs 28/69/69 for the Current Pump / Interface Circuit / Micro Circuit materials.

Iv noticed the same problem with all my T2 BPCs.

Is this a bug, or by design?


Build cost comparison: yes, this will happen, because the impact of decryptors on build cost is *significantly* reduced currently. On a raw, undecrypted BPC you should be around the same material costs, but on TQ the jump from -4 to 0 is reducing your build costs by ~50%, whereas the same decryptor on SiSi is moving you from 2% to 6% and thus reducing your build costs by ~4%.

That doesn't make sense. The TQ decryptor reduces the material requirements from 200% of base to 100% of base. On Sisi I would expect the decryptor reduce the material requirements from 100% of base to 96% of base. Therefore the TQ build cost of 100% of base should be slightly more than the Sisi build cost of 96%.

But then you (CCP) increased the base costs on Sisi. Presumably you increased base build costs so that TQ ME-4 is equivalent to Sisi ME2%. Which should make Davy's ME+9% BPC have a slightly lower build cost than the "normal" ME+2%, which, again, should be equivalent to TQ ME-4 build cost. That isn't what we are seeing. We are seeing substantial across-the-board increases in build costs on Sisi (22 to 28 is a 27% increase, 55 to 69 is 25%).

MDD


The 55 number is ME0, though, which is the equivalent of ~ME30% in the new system. ME-4 on TQ the equivalent number would be 75, and then you're getting a 9% reduction to 68.

Telkor Okel wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Makari Aeron wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Droidyk wrote:
It is the opposite for me, every blueprint I invent ends up on 1 run no matter how many runs on tech I copy.


Every run should result in a max-run T2 BPC, subject to decryptors changing this. The runs on the T1 copy should make no difference. Note that T2 modules now have 10 max runs and T2 ships/rigs now have 1 max runs.


Max runs are 10 on Adaptive Invul Field II, I'm still getting 1 run on a T2 BPC after inventing.


I think there's still a bug there that Nullabor's got on his to-fix list.


Any progress on this? (or did I miss an update) I just tested for mining crystals on my alt and got a 1 run t2 bpc


Ah, mining crystals specifically got caught in a rounding trap. Defecting this now.

Shiloh Templeton wrote:
CCP: Consider putting standings into manufacturing somewhere. Having an incentive to create standings with the NPC station facilities gives players a reason to log in and be in space. Choices, interesting game play, a distinction between doing industry in a station vs POS, etc.

The NPC industry tax seems like a natural fit like with trade and refining, but it could be anything. It could be a minimal requirement - certainly not excessive like the current POS standing requirements. But if I moved to another region to try to find a good team or install cost, I wouldn't mind having my standings with the relevant NPC corporation come into play.


This is something we would like to look at, yes.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#184 - 2014-07-14 11:57:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Sentient Blade
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is something we would like to look at, yes.


Awesome idea.

I can't think of anything that would make industrialists happier than having to re-skill and grind endless missions on the 5+ alts it takes to begin to be competitive as an industrialist.

Sarcasm aside, tying NPC standings into anything is usually a bad idea. It's forcing people to grind them, and let's be under no illusion, every way to get them involves some kind of mundane repetitive grinding.
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#185 - 2014-07-14 12:13:51 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is something we would like to look at, yes.


Awesome idea.

I can't think of anything that would make industrialists happier than having to re-skill and grind endless missions on the 5+ alts it takes to begin to be competitive as an industrialist.

Sarcasm aside, tying NPC standings into anything is usually a bad idea. It's forcing people to grind them, and let's be under no illusion, every way to get them involves some kind of mundane repetitive grinding.


Depends what we do and how much impact it has. A prerequisite for tying standings back into industry would be to allow you to gain standings by doing industry, because grinding missions to do industry would indeed be silly.

With that in place, a basic implementation might be that we deduct 0.5% of the NPC tax for every 1 point of relevant net standing you have, so for maxed standings in a system with a 3% cost index you would save somewhere on the order of 0.15% of build cost.
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#186 - 2014-07-14 12:24:46 UTC
Urgh no thanks. I am still utterly resentful of having to grind standings for 4-4 trading benefits. You don't even need to suggest accumulation rates for it to be clear cosmos missions would be the preferable grind route. Eve has managed to avoid implementing arbitrary grinding for so much other content, lets keep industry free as well, why not.

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#187 - 2014-07-14 12:28:06 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Depends what we do and how much impact it has. A prerequisite for tying standings back into industry would be to allow you to gain standings by doing industry, because grinding missions to do industry would indeed be silly


I'm 100% behind granting additional benefits to characters involved in industry, but in the case of standings I would want to be absolutely sure that negative derived standings are nullified as it would present a significant barrier to re-location as it's not entirely out the question that industry toons would, over time, drop below -5, for doing nothing more than building ships.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#188 - 2014-07-14 13:14:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Sentient Blade wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Depends what we do and how much impact it has. A prerequisite for tying standings back into industry would be to allow you to gain standings by doing industry, because grinding missions to do industry would indeed be silly


I'm 100% behind granting additional benefits to characters involved in industry, but in the case of standings I would want to be absolutely sure that negative derived standings are nullified as it would present a significant barrier to re-location as it's not entirely out the question that industry toons would, over time, drop below -5, for doing nothing more than building ships.


As long as player standings are also exempted from that, I am fine with no standings involved. As soon, as player standing* can influence Industry in the sense of manufacturing/research/invention, NPC standing should also play a role.

You are also not forced to use the standing and grind it. It's entirely your choice to, firstly, stay in High sec and produce there in stations and not in a POS or to go to Low/00 sec and do science there. Secondly, you don't need to grind like crazy. You can very well leisurely run Distros occasionally to slowly build up your standing or you can employ one of the Standing Farmer corps, who do it for you.

The Standing gaining process is also only a repetitive grind as long as PVE stays as it is. With more dynamic content in addition to the regular missions, this could be made a lot lot entertaining and rewarding in terms of experience and fun.

*which it actually already does if you look at PI and Pocos

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Galen Achu
Bellerophon Expedition
#189 - 2014-07-14 14:32:09 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Galen Achu wrote:
The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.


Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.


That would mean the Prospect only has a broad speciality and no narrow speciality. Is that intentional?

Or should it be considered a covops?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#190 - 2014-07-14 14:41:35 UTC
Galen Achu wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Galen Achu wrote:
The prospect mining frigate is not recognized as either "frigate" or "small class" in the "Teams" tab in the overview window. This does work for the venture mining frigate.


Punkturis just fixed this internally, it should now be recognized as a "small class"; it's not a "frigate" because that's only for T1 frigates, which the Venture is but the Prospect isn't.


That would mean the Prospect only has a broad speciality and no narrow speciality. Is that intentional?

Or should it be considered a covops?


This is intentional, yes, and true for a number of ships and items where we don't want to have one of a team's specialties taken up with a bonus to building just one ship (for example).
Seith Kali
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#191 - 2014-07-14 15:20:03 UTC
Can we maybe think about industry standings a little farther down the roadmap?

Apprentice Goonswarm Economic Warfare Consultant - Drowning in entitlement and privilege. 
Mackenzie Nolen
Doomheim
#192 - 2014-07-15 08:39:14 UTC
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This is something we would like to look at, yes.


What? You took standings out of POS anchoring but want to add it back in to some other aspect of industry? That kind of just sounds like change for the sake of change.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#193 - 2014-07-16 12:06:38 UTC
Just a quick question, on the test server it states that tax is 10% across the board. I was under the impression that this was going to be affected by the quality of the npc stations in the various systems. Has this not yet been implemented on the test server, or was the idea scrapped?
CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
#194 - 2014-07-16 15:19:36 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Just a quick question, on the test server it states that tax is 10% across the board. I was under the impression that this was going to be affected by the quality of the npc stations in the various systems. Has this not yet been implemented on the test server, or was the idea scrapped?


Tax is constant, but the underlying cost index is modified by stations present.
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#195 - 2014-07-16 16:46:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Medalyn Isis
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Just a quick question, on the test server it states that tax is 10% across the board. I was under the impression that this was going to be affected by the quality of the npc stations in the various systems. Has this not yet been implemented on the test server, or was the idea scrapped?


Tax is constant, but the underlying cost index is modified by stations present.

Unless I have missed it, this would be great to see at a glance on the interface. I was looking for the number but couldn't find it on the starmap or S&I interface.

(edit) You mentioned previously Greyscale, that NPC null sec would get some special consideration due to the lack of stations there. Just wondering did they get anything to keep them competitive with high sec?
Mackenzie Nolen
Doomheim
#196 - 2014-07-16 16:54:54 UTC
OK I don't remember seeing this anywhere, though I will go look through these threads again just to make myself feel stupid when I inevitably find it. In the meantime...

How do you bid on a team with corporate funds? It seems bids on teams only pull from my personal wallet.

(for sure this is the right thread this time)
Circumstantial Evidence
#197 - 2014-07-16 19:36:02 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
[quote=CCP Greyscale][quote=Medalyn Isis](edit) You mentioned previously Greyscale, that NPC null sec would get some special consideration due to the lack of stations there. Just wondering did they get anything to keep them competitive with high sec?
Only four NPC stations in Great Wildlands...
Medalyn Isis
Doomheim
#198 - 2014-07-16 22:07:44 UTC
Medalyn Isis wrote:
CCP Greyscale wrote:
Medalyn Isis wrote:
Just a quick question, on the test server it states that tax is 10% across the board. I was under the impression that this was going to be affected by the quality of the npc stations in the various systems. Has this not yet been implemented on the test server, or was the idea scrapped?


Tax is constant, but the underlying cost index is modified by stations present.

Unless I have missed it, this would be great to see at a glance on the interface. I was looking for the number but couldn't find it on the starmap or S&I interface.

(edit) You mentioned previously Greyscale, that NPC null sec would get some special consideration due to the lack of stations there. Just wondering did they get anything to keep them competitive with high sec?


After a really good look, it seems the only data being given is "system cost index". I have no idea what is affecting the system cost index though, some numbers displayed on the tooltip would be really helpful. I think on the devblog it mentioned there was going to be a comprehensive tooltip for this but I cannot seem to find it.

And I can find no way to find out which systems are good and which are not so good as far as I can tell.
Circumstantial Evidence
#199 - 2014-07-16 23:30:12 UTC
Since cost index is a property of all systems... I think the info should also be made available as a tab, in Solar System Information.
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#200 - 2014-07-17 17:02:58 UTC
Unsticked and locked.

Please post feedback in the Crius consolidation thread, and don't forget we have a known issue thread as well.
First pagePrevious page8910